Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Officials Expect Catastrophic New Terror Attacks -- Drudge Headline
Washington Post ^ | 12/24/2002 | By Barton Gellman / Washington Post

Posted on 12/23/2002 9:03:31 PM PST by ex-Texan

Edited on 12/23/2002 10:05:46 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last
To: Timesink
Big bump.
41 posted on 12/24/2002 7:40:16 AM PST by GWfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
I believe the fact that there have been no small scale attacks such as car bombings or suicide bombings in the US since 9/11, indicates something enormous is coming. The bad guys are marshalling their efforts and keeping a low profile with the intention of preparing massive strikes. Small scale attacks would open up their network to scrutiny and the payoff for them is not worth it in their minds.
42 posted on 12/24/2002 7:45:46 AM PST by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
"• Of all the uncertainties about al Qaeda operators, the most serious one for the Bush administration is whether there are undiscovered "sleeper cells" now present in the United States. That concern, expressed widely among those interviewed, results from a common belief that there may have been in-country conspirators in the Sept. 11 plot who have not been identified by the FBI. Director Robert S. Mueller III has expressed the view that there were none."

Thus does Mr. Mueller prove himself a fool and unworthy to hold the office he occupies.

--Boris

43 posted on 12/24/2002 7:53:51 AM PST by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
Well, I am taking my family to Washington DC and Virginia and we are flying back to Phoenix via NY next spring~so there! I'm not afraid of the naysayers and handwringers...I have confidence that our President has the best men and women working to protect and serve America and that is ALL anyone can ever ask!
44 posted on 12/24/2002 8:01:39 AM PST by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
"We want to get that inner core more than anything," the official said, describing their number as roughly 30. The Post identified the 20 (see box) from interviews and a set of notes made by a participant in the hunt. Called "HVTs" in the argot of government, the 13 men believed at large include four of the five in the uppermost tier.

I've been hunting for the link in the "see box" - I'm either blind or it's too early yet...

anyone see the refed link in the box?
45 posted on 12/24/2002 8:09:36 AM PST by Bobibutu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
It looks as though "they" may have a hand in making these catastrophic attacks happen. Or are they just predicting that they will fail at doing their jobs once again?
46 posted on 12/24/2002 8:23:50 AM PST by mandible
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: princess leah
I would ask them to do their jobs! Somehow, I am not bursting with confidence. Just look at how Colleen Rowley's supervisor at the FBI just received an award for a "job well done" and this is after he obstructed an investigation that might have prevented 9/11. What heads have rolled since the intelligence failures of 9/11? None.

That's why I have frail confidence in politicos who, through the action of predicting "catastrophic" attacks, appear to be entering "cover-thine-ass" mode in advance of failing to do their jobs.
47 posted on 12/24/2002 8:43:59 AM PST by mandible
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Fusion
Fusion, enough of this Tet style fantasy. Muslim lunatics terrorizing London would have the same impact as the German bombing of London 62 years ago. Londoners would band together, clean the streets of the Muslim scum(a little harder now that their guns have been removed), and rally behind Blair. Public support for the Iraq war would quadruple. The liberal British population does not support this war and terrorizing the citizenry would be a horrible move for the Islamo nuts.

May the Christian god have mercy on the UK...

May our Christian God have mercy on you and the rest of the murdering Muslim lunatics during their day of judgement. Crawl back into your Mosque and finish building your shoe bomb.

48 posted on 12/24/2002 4:13:22 PM PST by Archie Bunker on steroids
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
bump
49 posted on 12/24/2002 4:14:50 PM PST by Archie Bunker on steroids
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator

Comment #51 Removed by Moderator

To: Archie Bunker on steroids; MadIvan; Wraith; Kate22; Ranger; gitmogrunt
Easy there Howser Street man. Nobody (at least not in the West) wants to see London and the UK crushed beneath WMD and rampaging Islamic entente gunmen. However from a games theory perspective, it is their correct and proper operational move in trying to check the US attack on Iraq.

That is why they prepare to strike London and to win. Otherwise Iraq will be crushed in about eight weeks and Saddam Hussein toppled. When that happens the Western momentum will return in the "War on terror" and the Islamic entente will have lost the initiative.

An initiative that has been frittered away by the West in the last four weeks.

It's not 1940 and the Brits today are not the hardy generation of survivors that came of age in the slaughter of the Great War. These Brits today merely the socialist yield of decades of left wing madness that have permitted tens of thousands of fifth columnists to enter their country and abuse what was once a great Western state.

There are plenty of guns in Britain and acquiring an AK-47 there almost as easy as in downtown Prishtina. The incestuous nature of British law enforcement -- where the criminal gangs sleep with the peelers in a "regulated" passive justice environment -- has completely emasculated Britain's non-intelligence defences. Now it is the Albanian gangs that rule the country -- and they have all the AK's you want to buy at 150 quid/per.

Arming the battlegroup of gunmen was quite easy. The Islamic entente cells needed merely to bring the fighters into the country during the past six months. "Allah's suitcase" they say was a bit more difficult...

The fact remains that Britain is the weak link in the American attack versus Iraq. She is in both an economic and moral decline that has escalated in the last few years to the point she is like a punch drunk former boxing champ showing up on the undercard hoping to collect a payday on old dreams and memories. The Islamic entente will take the UK down at the time most appropriate for the geo-strategic decision to be effected.

Oil hits 36/bbl and "the City" starts to crumble...

Baghdad cannot hope to stop the post-modern American blitzkrieg which is one of the most brilliant battleplans developed in the history of warfare. The modern day Bismarck's go-ahead for a 21st century Operation Market-Garden style airdrop a gutsy and winning decision -- as long as it is the West striking first.

The Islamic entente know this and realise they have only a matter of weeks to preempt the Western onslaught on either the European urban battlefield or the spot market. The UK is the weak link -- where an Eastern Holy Warrior schwerpunkt can decisively check the West. Thus they have prepared to win there...

Hopefully you turn on your CNN or Sky News this weekend and see the breathless "journalist" doing her talking head thing in babbling about "major" arrests in Britain -- with footage of hundreds of suspects rounded up in a massive dragnet of opposition fighters. Blair knows the attack is coming and so do his Ministers -- how many of them will be in London next week? Very few I suspect...

"Tet style fantasy" huh? Maybe, but then again -- maybe not... The clock is ticking on Tony Blair and the Brit security services...

May the Christian god have mercy on the UK...

The forces of freedom on the move. Europe trembles.

52 posted on 12/24/2002 11:05:47 PM PST by Fusion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: princess leah
I have confidence that our President has the best men and women working to protect and serve America and that is ALL anyone can ever ask!

Don't you get a little concerned when our president says "Islam is a religion of peace." and when he shows no signs of stopping illegal immigration on the Mexican border? -Tom

53 posted on 12/25/2002 5:05:23 PM PST by Capt. Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Fusion
Do you happen to know what % of the UK population is Muslim? I was amazed at the % in France.
54 posted on 12/25/2002 5:24:20 PM PST by 185JHP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
From the Washington Post article: At the White House, some officials see a dangerous hole in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, a subject Bush has yet to address. If the top three constitutional successors are killed -- the vice president, speaker of the House and president pro tem of the Senate -- then succession moves down a list of Cabinet secretaries. But once the House elects a new speaker, the law is silent on whether the speaker may reclaim priority and replace the former Cabinet member as president. That sets up a potential struggle at a moment when the nation would need every available resource of unity and calm.

Recent discussion of Byrd's position in the line of presidential succession as president pro tem made me focus on this mention of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 as the act that puts Byrd in that position: until that act was passed, next in line after the vice president were members of the cabinet, starting with the secretary of state. So why did the 1947 Congress make the change? In 1947, there was a recently elected Republican Congress, a Democratic President Truman who had succeeded to the presidency as a result of FDR's death, and no vice president. Had Truman died before the passage of the act, the secretary of state would have become president. In 1947, there were two secretaries of state, first Jimmy Byrnes, then George Marshall. There have been few people who have not admired Marshall, then and now, but Byrnes was controversial, as a segregationist, a Catholic, and for other reasons. And it's possible the Republican Congress was reacting belatedly to the fact that, for some months after Truman became president, the secretary of state was still Edward Stettinius, a man of notably limited abilities. The 1947 act put ahead of the secretary of state in the line of succession the Speaker of the House, who was then Joe Martin, Republican of Massachusetts. I don't even know who was president pro tem of the Senate at the time, but it would have been some senior Republican. I wonder what the real reason for the 1947 act was.

55 posted on 12/26/2002 8:41:57 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson